Baderz_Jas
Regular Member
sky713 said:i like the old..it can sometiems last forever![]()
Yeah, it's more exciting

sky713 said:i like the old..it can sometiems last forever![]()
Bronze medal playoff, Commonwealth Games 2006, Melbourne
Chetan Anand – Aamir Ghaffar
Game 1
rally regular
0-0 *0-0
1-0 *1-0
1-1 1-0*
2-1 *1-0
2-2 1-0*
2-3 1-1*
2-4 1-2*
3-4 *1-2
4-4 *2-2
4-5 2-2*
4-6 2-3*
5-6 *2-3
6-6 *3-3
6-7 3-3*
6-8 3-4*
7-8 *3-4
7-9 3-4*
8-9 *3-4
9-9 *4-4
9-10 4-4*
9-11 4-5*
10-11 *4-5
11-11 *5-5
12-11 *6-5
13-11 *7-5
13-12 7-5*
14-12 *7-5
15-12 *8-5
16-12 *9-5
16-13 9-5*
17-13 *9-5
18-13 *10-5
18-14 10-5*
19-14 *10-5
19-15 10-5*
19-16 10-6*
19-17 10-7*
20-17 *10-7
21-17 *11-7
Game 2
0-0 *0-0
0-1 0-0*
1-1 *0-0
1-2 0-0*
2-2 *0-0
2-3 0-0*
2-4 0-1*
2-5 0-2*
3-5 *0-2
3-6 0-2*
4-6 *0-2
4-7 0-2*
4-8 0-3*
5-8 *0-3
6-8 *1-3
7-8 *2-3
8-8 *3-3
8-9 3-3*
9-9 *3-3
9-10 3-3*
10-10 *3-3
11-10 *4-3
11-11 4-3*
11-12 4-4*
11-13 4-5*
12-13 *4-5
13-13 *5-5
13-14 5-5*
13-15 5-6*
13-16 5-7*
13-17 5-8*
13-18 5-9*
14-18 *5-9
15-18 *6-9
16-18 *7-9
16-19 7-9*
17-19 *7-9
18-19 *8-9
18-20 8-9*
18-21 8-10*
Game 3
0-0 0-0*
0-1 0-1*
1-1 *0-1
2-1 *1-1
2-2 1-1*
2-3 1-2*
2-4 1-3*
3-4 *1-3
3-5 1-3*
4-5 *1-3
5-5 *2-3
6-5 *3-3
7-5 *4-3
7-6 4-3*
8-6 *4-3
8-7 4-3*
9-7 *4-3
9-8 4-3*
10-8 *4-3
11-8 *5-3
11-9 5-3*
12-9 *5-3
12-10 5-3*
13-10 *5-3
14-10 *6-3
15-10 *7-3
16-10 *8-3
17-10 *9-3
17-11 9-3*
18-11 *9-3
18-12 9-3*
19-12 *9-3
20-12 *10-3
20-13 10-3*
21-13 *10-3
dlp said:Nice analysis kanive!
dlp said:One big issue under 15 pt is lack of close games. While the commentators at the CWG liked to point out that once one player was in front a bit they would always win, I would suggest that this is mostly the case under the old system. I watched the first day of the All England live this year, lets look how many close games there were in the 1st 2 rounds of MS.
48 matches played (32+16)
8 won in 3 ends , 40 won in straight games
This gives 104 games to 15, of which only 4 were set. Of the 104 games only 24 were won to double figures (including the 4 with setting).
So only about 25% of the ends played in the first two rounds were "close" and only about 4% involved setting. Clearly the later stages would feature more tight matches but the bulk of the matches in the tournament it seems are predictable and pretty one sided! Under the rally point scoring we would see closer scorelines and more chance of upsets.
taneepak said:There was a recent research study to find out which is the most exciting game in the world. I think the source was from one of the top universities in the US. Their definition of 'exciting' is the unpredictability and upset element of the game. Their finding was that soccer was the most exciting and American football was the least exciting.
taneepak said:Now would you want to watch a game if you are almost 100% certain that A will beat B? Or what do you think of horse racing if there are no handicaps, which always means the best horse will win 100 times out of 100 races?
I was playing a friend last night and we were playing the old rules. Following a series of unforced errors I found myself 13-6 down. Although I still made mistakes in the remainder of the game I was able to stop my opponent from making two points in a row and came through to win 15-13.
Easier said than done!dlp said:Overall you won fractionally more rallies than your opponent, under the new system the only difference is the limited number of rallies played, possibly realising that the match would be shorter you would have stopped making errors earlier and still won.
No, this is not true. It is incredibly rare when there is a big difference in level between the players, but that is as it should be.dlp said:The much reported comeback under the old system is really incredibly rare amongst good level players. What does sometimes happen is that players choke when near the finishing line and throw the game away,
This is incorrect. 20-18 in the rally system is more like 10-8 in the rally system. To me, stopping the game at that point is like saying "oh, Tolkien is too long, let's stop reading when they reach Rivendell."dlp said:well this is also likely under rally point scoring. If you are 20-18 up and go for a winner either you win or your opponent will serve to tie the scores at 19-20, thats pressure. Under the old system you are likely to be 14-11 up after a similar balance of play, either you get the winner or they merely get the serve, thats less pressure and if you have been winning up to then you are very likely to win the match.
Well, what happens then when LCW meets Lin Dan?dlp said:If you watch the first day of the All England you notice that players make a really big effort at the start and often a lead of a few points is opened up by the first player to reach 8 and they go on to win the match comfortably. The exception is maybe when a player like Lin Dan or Lee CW coasts along knowing they can win the match at any point!![]()
I agree it is different and also that it is too short. Do not agree that it is in any sense more logical.dlp said:So I think the rally point in itself is no worse than the old system, its more logical, its just different to what we are used to. The real problem is the shortening of the matches, they should definately have gone for a 5 game format.